Forum talk:The Monopoly of the Republocrats
What is This? Early on, in Campaign's infancy (if we're out of it yet), I made the suggestion that articles on issues should resemble "Dynamic Essays," huge, well-organized and well-written essays that offered a very good foundation for any investigating an issue. That didn't take off so well--people seem to prefer nice bulleted one-off facts about the issues. I figure that format is better for someone who just wants a quick run-down, or doing a fishing expedition for random facts that support their position. Initially I'm thinking that only people who agree with the general thesis of an essay should contribute. The point/counter-point system evidenced thus far on Campaigns really breaks up the reading and I see it as ultimately unbeneficial to anyone. That's just my opinion. I would prefer any dissenters to create their own essay that does not directly counter one essay, but puts forth their views on the topic. That's what we want, I think: nuanced views that are profoundly different from the current Republican/Democrat I'm right/You're wrong mentality. If anyone does happen to create a dynamic essay that is related to this one, or any other essays that might be popping, be sure to include a link in the box at the top. Also, I want to see people discussing the dynamic essay on the discussion page, debating the points brought up in the essay. This should be separate from discussions amongst the writers of the essay, so I'm going to create different sections--'general discussion' to post question, comments, and concerns about the ideas in the essay, and 'editing discussion' to discuss how to better the essay.' I would ask that all concerns be brought up on the discussion page before making changes to the essay. Ferguson 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC) General Discussion I agree that the two-party system is far from ideal, and even that there are a lot of issues on which both parties are wrong, but I don't agree with the argument that this is solely due to the collusion of who different sides of the same coin. Over time, if the majority of a parties' had any significant disagreement with the values of the party, that party would either change its values or lose support. While I find the theory of a false conflict for the purpose of keeping both sides in power a la Eurasia/Eastasia/Oceania interesting, it seems that more of the blame should be placed on the citizens who don't know or care enough about politics to do anything but vote the party line. --whosawhatsis? 02:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :Or don't bother to vote at all because they see the entire process as entrenched and unchangable. Until someone like Howard Dean comes along, or the economy goes south. Chadlupkes 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::Agreed ::I agree with all of the above. As the essay says, there's a good reason for the apathy; the Republocrats power seems unimpeachable. But in a democracy, any abuse of the government eventually falls on the shoulders of the public. This is something only 'the people' can fix, if it will ever be fixed. ::I understand that more than a few major contributers to this wiki lean toward the Democratic party, and I can respect that. However, I do want to encourage more creative solutions than the temporary one of getting a little more blue in Congress (though that does seem to be the most effective short term solution). And if you're just now getting into to politics, do not vote in November. Uninformed voting is what got us into this mess, and I'm doubtful more uninformed voting will get us out. If you want to vote, get informed. And if you want to be my friend, don't vote for a Republocrat. Ferguson 06:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :::That I don't agree with. The system may suck, and we should do all we can to change it, but we still have to work within it until its fixed. With the exception of the few areas where a third party has a chance, voting in the US is not done by voting for the candidate you want in office, it's done by voting against the candidate that you don't want in office. I don't "lean toward the Democratic party", I lean away from the Republican party. Voting for Democratic candidates is a vote against the Republicans, which is severely needed at this point. We need to shake up the two-party system, which will take time, but we also need to undo the damage of the current administration, which we can make huge strides toward in the short-term by removing republican politicians. --whosawhatsis? 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Like I said... Ferguson 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::::...above, that's the short term solution. It looks like the might happen. But we shouldn't think that anything will really be solved if Democrats get into power. I'm supsicious, myself. The Republicans did too good of a job setting the stage for the Democrats to come riding in on. Remember that the actor playing Villain is going to act really bad and the actor playing Hero is going to look really good, but they're both on the same team. ::::Also, I strongly advocate working within the system. Overthrowing the current Republocrat is working within the system. Not their system, obviously, but their system is bad. And the idea that you don't vote for someone, and instead vote against someone, really summarizes the problem quite well. I really can't disagree that much. I'm involved with the Dems to change this very fact. Good start! Chadlupkes 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Editing Discussion Isn't the preferred spelling "Republicrat"? --whosawhatsis? 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :That sort of gives the Republicans a little more real estate, doesn't it? As it is, the Democrats only get an equal amount of letters in plural form. I don't see why the GOP should get yet another letter. -- Ferguson 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::I don't believe that I've ever seen the spelling used in the article before, but I know I've seen "Republicrat". I think it makes more sense, not in terms of number of letters, but to join them on a common letter. --whosawhatsis? 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :::Makes sense :::I suppose that makes sense. Funny how far Republicans have to reach to find common ground with the Democrats. Just sayin'! -- Ferguson 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Cute :P --whosawhatsis? 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)